By Bob Gribbin
This is the third article in the Hawkesbury Gazette's investigation into the proposed Special Rate Variation sought by Hawkesbury City Council.
In Part One, we examined whether the council had demonstrated genuine financial
need. Part Two explored whether the community was properly informed and engaged in the consultation process.
Part Three examines the direct financial impact on ratepayers, which constitutes
Criterion 3 under the guidelines used by the NSW Office of Local Government and
assessed by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART).
The main question under this criterion is whether the proposed increase imposes an unreasonable burden on residents and businesses.
Two Rate Rises in a Decade
If approved, the current proposal would see rates rise by 8.66% annually over four
years, culminating in a total increase of 39.4%. However, the full impact becomes clearer when the proposal is viewed alongside the earlier Special Rate Variation approved in 2018.
That earlier increase raised rates by 31.29% over three years. Together, the two rate rises would mean Hawkesbury residents have experienced an increase of about 83% above what the standard rate peg alone would have caused over ten years.
For many households already facing higher living costs, this prompts questions
about affordability.
What the Increase Means for the Average Household
Council modelling indicates the projected path for the typical residential ratepayer.
Year With SRV Without SRV Additional cost
2025–26 $1,688 $1,688 —
2026–27 $1,834 $1,740 $94
2027–28 $1,993 $1,793 $200
2028–29 $2,166 $1,838 $328
2029–30 $2,353 $1,883 $470
By the fourth year of the proposal, the average household would be paying $665
more annually than today and $470 more than under the standard rate peg alone.
For businesses, the increase is considerably greater, especially in higher rate
brackets.
Not All Suburbs Are Affected Equally
One of the complexities of the Hawkesbury rating system is that rates are primarily
based on land values. This means the financial impact differs greatly across suburbs.
Data cited in the analysis shows that some areas already face very high-rate bills
relative to income levels.
For example Oakville residents might face annual rates nearing $7,000 under the proposed SRV while Bligh Park residents would pay around $1,858 according to the same proposal.
This disparity happens because land values in certain areas have risen considerably due to nearby development, even though residents’ incomes may not have increased at the same rate. The issue affects retirees and long-term residents on fixed incomes.
Capacity to Pay
The Council commissioned a capacity-to-pay analysis, which concluded that the
Hawkesbury has an overall “moderate capacity to pay.”
However, the study also found notable differences within the local government area.
According to the analysis, the Richmond–Windsor area, which has the largest
population, also exhibits the greatest financial vulnerability due to lower household incomes, greater proportions of renters and higher levels of financial stress.
The same analysis also notes that if the SRV proceeds, Hawkesbury’s average
residential rates would shift towards the higher end of the spectrum among
metropolitan and fringe councils.
The Sewer Divestment Issue
The council has argued that transferring the Windsor sewerage system to Sydney
Water will help offset some of the SRV's costs.
Under this setup, roughly 25% of ratepayers could save between $200 and $300
annually.
However, the analysis reviewed by the Gazette suggests that these savings may be
partly offset by a new sewer infrastructure charge being introduced to repay debt
incurred during the Windsor sewer pipeline failure.
If that happens, the net benefit to households might be less than originally shown.
Existing Rate Payment Issues
The council's own financial data also shows that its outstanding rates ratio is already above the NSW benchmark. Outstanding rates happen when ratepayers cannot or refuse to pay their rates on time.
While the council has partly attributed this to disruptions caused by floods and
natural disasters, the figure also raises questions about the financial pressures
already confronting some households.
Critics argue that a further 39.4% increase could lead more residents to struggle to
meet rate payments.
A Community Already Under Pressure
The financial debate over the proposed SRV is unfolding amid a broader cost-of-
living environment in which many households are already facing rising costs for
energy, insurance, mortgages, and rent.
For some residents, the proposed increase might be manageable. For others, especially pensioners and households on fixed incomes, it may pose a
substantial additional burden.
Under the OLG guidelines, IPART must consider these impacts when determining
whether the proposed increase is reasonable.
The Bigger Question
The debate ultimately revolves around balancing two competing realities.
On one hand, the Hawkesbury faces substantial infrastructure needs and covers a
large geographic area.
Conversely, the proposed rate hike would add extra financial strain on thousands of households throughout the region.
As Local Government Minister Ron Hoenig has noted, the final say on council
performance rests with residents themselves.
Therefore, understanding the true financial impact of council decisions has become a vital aspect of the local democratic process.
Coming up next
Part Four of the Gazette’s investigation will assess whether the council’s planning
documents, including its long-term financial plan and delivery program, meet the
requirements of the Integrated Planning and Reporting framework used to justify the proposed rate rise.
